Category Archives: Affirmative Defense

According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, in the past 10 years, there’ve been 20 Terrorist plots against the US. Three of those plots were real but were discovered and stopped by private Americans. The other 17 were created–and then stopped–by the FBI.

The apparent purpose of these false flag operations was to deceive Americans into believing we’re under attack by foreign or domestic terrorists who are fictional. Based on the false belief that we’re being persistently attacked, Americans tend to accept and even our government’s invasions of foreign countries and our own growing police state.

If you want to fly on an airplane, you must first be x-rayed or groped based, in part, on 17 plots created by the FBI to prove the existence of terrorists who don’t actually exist.

Every government agent–right up to the President–who authorized or participated in such fraudulent terrorist attacks should be tried for treason and, if found guilty, hanged by the neck until dead.

“One “poster” in particular knows from experience that when a person enters the courtroom half-cocked, that person will experience the real meaning of the double edged sword.

“First of all a plaintiff must respond to Affirmative Defenses. Secondly, the only acceptable way to do so is with Opposing Points and Authorities. Thirdly, it is the very points of Law (precedence) that is being argued:

“For instance:

“McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), was an early substantive ruling by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof. It was the seminal case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. (Read closely…BURDEN-SHIFTING FRAMEWORK).”

I’m not sure that I clearly understood Sem’s comment. Initially, I thought he was advocating “affirmative defenses”. In retrospect, I suspect he wasn’t advocating so much as attempting to explain something about the burden-shifting nature of “affirmative defenses”.

Whatever his intended meaning, I started to pen a brief comment in response. But my comment grew so large, that I decided to post it as the following article: